8 votes

Iceland forces Banks to Foregive Most Home Loan Debt!

Iceland Forgives Mortgage Debt for the Population. 32 second newsreel. Spanish Newscast w/ English subtitles. Breif 32 second news clip.

Iceland Forgives Mortgage Debt for the Population. Putting Bankers and Politicians on "Bench of Accused"

Jubilee!

"This Federal Reserve Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Wilson) signs this bill the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized." — Hon. Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., Dec. 23, 1913

"The case for government by elites is irrefutable." — Senator William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1963

"I never thought the Federal Reserve System would prove such a failure. The country is in a state of irretrievable bankruptcy." — Senator Carter Glass 1983

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Iceland had a fast recovery

because they said NO to the banksters and let the people decide.
Should be en example to everyone.

They said no to the international banks.

Iceland Court Says Banks Can’t Use Local Rates on Foreign Loans
By Omar R. Valdimarsson - Feb 15, 2012 8:54 AM GMT-0800
Bloomberg News: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-15/iceland-court-says-...

Iceland’s Supreme Court ruled that lenders can’t adjust interest rates higher on foreign currency- linked loans that it found illegal in 2010, overruling a government law from 2010. Lenders must abide by the contractual interest rates on the loan agreements, according to ruling issued today by the Reykjavik-based court. Iceland’s largest banks were taken over by the government in 2008 after defaulting on about $85 billion in debt and now operate under the names of Landsbankinn hf, Islandsbanki hf, and Arion Banki hf. The banking collapse plunged the island’s economy into a crisis that sent unemployment surging nine-fold and triggered a recession that lasted through half of 2010.

The Supreme Court ruled in June 2010, that loans indexed to foreign-currency rates were illegal. The decision meant that borrowers with such loans were only obliged to repay the principal in kronur. Lenders have written off about 108 billion kronur ($875 million) of currency-indexed loans since the end of 2008, the Icelandic Financial Services Association said last week.

After the collapse of Iceland’s economy in October 2008, the central bank estimated that households had outstanding debt in foreign currencies ranging from 300 billion kronur to 350 billion kronur. Iceland’s 2008 financial crisis was exacerbated by banks borrowing in yen and francs to take advantage of lower interest rates, and then repackaging the loans in krona before passing them on to clients.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Housing Bubble

going to burst sometime like it did with us. but hey atleast housing prices will go down and be what there suppose to be and at price where people can buy them and not be in debt to the bankers.

I do not support such

I do not support such behavior by governments. They are using the Force of big government to solve a problem created by big government; all the while providing a sideshow for the Icelandic people and others to the conclusion that big government is the answer to their problems.

The answer to the problem was that the government should never have bailed anybody out in the first place.

Governments should not be able to break contracts.

People willingly signed those loan contracts of their own volitions -there was no coercion- and they should honor them. If they don't like the fact that they got screwed because their government officials bailed out the banks, then they should elect new government officials who wont do such things. The banks wouldn't allow a next time to occur if they are aware that they will not get bailed out, or when the next time occurs the banks will go bankrupt.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I find it interesting that those on DP who are proponents of liberty and opponents of government force, as well as, appose the Alinsky-ites and their "ends justify the means" mentality, are now so very eager to support that very same directive. How does one justify the new found support for "the ends justify the means?" Can this justification ever be used in a way to maybe justify welfare, socialized medicine, or some-other big government program?

Can your accepted justification, for allowing government to break a contract, ever be used to break other contracts, like maybe a Constitution?

Respectfully submitted...

"The answer to the problem was that the government should never have bailed anybody out in the first place." Agreed. However, since we can't go back in time and change that I see it as a moot point. We can only move forward.

"Governments should not be able to break contracts." Agreed. However, I think we can agree that government do in fact interfere with and break contracts on a regular basis. The Constitution itself is a contract and they haven't followed that for years. In reality, that should nullify the contract and any responsibilities we have under it.

"The banks wouldn't allow a next time to occur if they were aware that they will not get bailed out, or when the next time occurs the banks will go bankrupt." I agree 100%. Again, however, we can't go back in time and change what was done. We can only move forward. Forgiving the debt comparable to the bailouts is the only real way I see to nullify them and retroactively send that message to the banks.

"Two wrongs don't make a right." Neither does one wrong.

"People willingly signed those loan contracts of their own volitions -there was no coercion- and they should honor them." Disagree here. Contracts aren't enforcible if signed under fraudulent conditions. The entire banking system is a scam, a ponzi scheme. We both know that. If we signed a contract that said I would sell you a buiding, then you found out that I don't really own it, should you have to pay me for a fake deed? After all, there was no coercion.

"Ends justify the means..." I don't think the ends do justify the means. However, this is how the government operates. If I could magically force a constitutional government I would. I think it is unfair and naive to force moral and philosophical contraints on the public when they mean nothing to the government, corporations, and big banks. The fact is that we already have welfare, socialized medicine, and many other big government programs and the Constitution hasn't been followed for many years.

We're only fighting with the tools available to us. The revolutionary war brought us one of the most prosperous and free nations in history. This was given to us through blood and murder. Did that end justify the means so that today we could ask these thought provoking questions?

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Since the whole banking

Since the whole banking system is a scam and ponzi scheme -which I do agree with- then I'm sure you have maxed out every credit card and acquired as many as possible and max those out also, while taking multiple mortgages out and buying as many new cars as your credit will allow, and then don't pay any of it back. It is just a ponzi scheme after all; it's not like it is "real" money, and it is not like the contract is enforceable because it was signed under fraudulent conditions. Right?

One cannot maintain the moral and philosophical high ground, against government intervention, if one gleefully applauds it when it suits them. One's argument against government intervention and the breaking of contracts, falls apart, if one -not only allows it, but agrees with it- when one thinks it is the right thing to do. The progressives think Universal Healthcare is the right thing to do; so you just gave them justification for allowing the government to do that, because it falls under the guise of, "I believe it's the right thing to do."

If you do not agree with the government being allowed to break contracts or use coercive force then you cannot support it even if it benefits yourself, lest you desire to be a hypocrite.

If we erode our philosophical argument willingly, then why do we need enemies; and why would anybody ever decide to agree with the totality of our philosophy of limited government, when we supported big government in this particular instant? One cannot be for Constitutional limited government and at the same time advocate the use of the big government apparatus, which we currently have, and maintain intellectual integrity and honesty, as well as, maintain logical consistency.

If big government, and the use of force by the government, is wrong, then it is always wrong.

Very clear. Sometimes I figure I'll make sense of it all...

As I see it, fishing is good. That I am sure.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

What contract? Who signed? Who witnessed? Who do we owe? Why?

The US Dollar, a bank note... is signed by:

  • Rosie Rios, US Treasurer, an agent of the US Government
  • Turbo Timmy G., US Secretary of Treasury, a witness

Let us learn who is appointed to sign our US Treasury up for mythical National Debt... Sovereign debt, an oxymoron:

Rosie Rios serves as the 43rd Treasurer of the United States. She has direct oversight over the U.S. Mint, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and FortKnox and is a key liaison with the Federal Reserve. In addition, the Treasurer serves as a senior advisor to the Secretary in the areas of community development and public engagement. She is especially passionate about supporting Women in Finance and issues of Main Street in the economic recovery.

Prior to her confirmation as Treasurer, Rios worked at MacFarlane Partners, where she was Managing Director of Investments. Working with MacFarlane Partners’ development and global capital partners, Rios played a central role in facilitating equity transactions for large mixed-use development projects in major urban areas. In November of 2008, Rios took a leave of absence from MacFarlane Partners to serve on the Treasury/Federal Reserve Transition Team and is a graduate of Harvard University.

Uncle Ben's sidekick, since 2008. Both Turbo Timmy & Uncle Ben are agents of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). International "legal tender" creators.

Ben S. Bernanke, Governor & Timothy F. Geithner, Alternate (aka: Sidekick) witness to the enslavement of the United States.


QUOTA VOTES
SDR 42 Billion ~ 18% 421,965 ~ 17%

Who do we owe? Why does the bank we supposedly owe... not present themselves... carrying proper payment for what they are buying? Why is a sovereign nation for sale?

Why does the US Treasury gift the Federal Reserve all the cash we print? Why does the US Treaury accept the cash they just gave away as payment for a debt, here-to-fore nonexistent.

"...if you are going to find out the facts of a thing, what's the sense in guessing out what ain't the facts and wasting ammunition? ... I didn't lose no sleep." - Tom Sawyer, Detective bu Mark Twain

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Good...

If I could have convinced others I would have stopped paying my mortgage around the time the banks got their bailouts. At the very least, each taxpayer should have gotten his or her "share" of the money given to the banks forgiven from their debt. We have to be careful with our "moral hazard" argument since nothing the banks do is moral anymore. If I'm in a street fight I'm not going to put down my rock because it isn't fair or moral.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Moral Hazzard

I agree that bailouts of any kind introduce moral hazard. But, the professionals at the financial institutions pushed prices too high and convinced a naive public that the properties were worth much more than could be sustained in the long term.

Thus we have a problem, if we just let the banks print money, drive up prices, than foreclose on the properties, we are giving them a green light to just rob us of all real property with printed paper.

I agree that it was stupid to fall for the idea that real estate would appreciate forever, but the average person can hardly see the effects of inflation of the money supply through credit expansion.

Thus, my feeling of the situation is that the banks created the problem and do not deserve to be handed the properties that they intentionally overvalued to lure people into. Make the banks give back to the people the amount that was unsustainable in the form of principle write-downs or checks in the mail to those who have no mortgage. Their inflation has harmed everyone that is forced to use their legal tender. Some economist, much smarter than I, at the Mises institute could figure this out.

This is how I understand the process

If the banks had been allowed to go bust in 2008-2009, the write downs would have happened by now as the new owners (after the bankruptcy liquidation) of the mortgages would have had the ability and the incentive to adjust the value of the principle to something closer to true market value. The losses would have been borne by the original insolvent lenders.

The bailouts merely kept the banks alive, kept the mortgages overvalued, and eliminated the need to voluntary write-down (why write-down an asset when you've been bailed out and no longer have an incentive to turn your investment into operating cash).

I suppose it is possible that the new owners of the mortgages could try to enforce the original loan agreements and end up forclosing on millions of homes, thus becoming gigantic landlords. But I doubt it, since structures require maintenance and an income stream is needed to pay for that maintenance, the new owners of the mortgages would have an incentive to produce a cash flow through continuing to collect mortgages or through putting the structures on the rental market, thus depressing rental prices, and thus making the sale value drop. The incentives, therefore, would have been to voluntarily lower principle to keep cash coming in.

The free market would have solved this problem without any new laws, or bailouts. We'd be living in a different world right now. Damn Bush and Obama!

The liquidity hazards are much worse than most can navigate.

The liquidity the banks speak of is debt-money chasing more debt. According to my navigation charts, we are heading straight-away to a Big Muddy Suck! We must change course, lest our ship-of-state be sucked under...

      Under debt we trust.

"Some men worship rank, some worship heroes, some worship power, some worship God, & over these ideals they dispute & cannot unite -- but they all worship money." - Mark Twain's Notebook .. written at a time when Gold & Silver coin were thought of & regularly traded as money.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

look at it this way.

Here in the US we did it differently. 16 trillion went to bail out the banks and we still have a problem with the derivatives and the economy. Had we used that money for the citizens we could have paid off all mortgage, credit card and student loan debt for all Americans. and no more derivative problem. plus the banks would be paid in full and would have no reserve issues. Even if the banks just forgave the mortgage debt, remember that they made up that money, they gave those people a check drawn against numbers that they entered on their balance sheet. It's not "real" money until it's paid back with money that is taken out of the economy. Putting money into the economy is done with a computer entry.

Look this way or that.. Hard to see what ain't there. No matter.

A matter of perspective, it is. If "legal tender" were real matter, one could weigh it. It would be listed on the Periodic Table of Elements.

To wit: Silver has the highest electrical conductivity of all metals, even higher than copper, but its greater cost has prevented it from being widely used in place of copper for electrical purposes. Despite this, 13,540 tons were used in the electromagnets used for enriching uranium during World War II (mainly because of the wartime shortage of copper).

There was no shortage in the harvest of "legal tender" ... debt-money.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

This is bad

This isn't how Capitalism is supposed to work. Two wrongs don't make a right. Nobody should be getting a bailout. This is how Moral Hazard becomes ingrained in a society. People expecting to be bailedout for their foolish decisions. As bad as the banks were they didn't put guns to people's heads forcing them to take out home loans. People ultimately made their own stupid decisiosn, based as much on greed as the bankers who lent them the money, because most everyone expected home values to appreciate forever and so they bought expecting a free lunch. The proper soluiton to this is for everyone to learn a lesson, not to pick favorites, whether it's "the little guy" or the big bad banks. Double standards are inherently unprincipled. There are two sides to every transaction. There will be unintended consequences to this decision: Lenders will be less willing to lend in the future, now that they can expect not to be paid back. Again, the people who took out the loans CHOSE to participate. You can say they were duped, but I don't buy it. People need to have more prudence, and if they don't they must be held accountable. This is like the OWS crowd asking for their bailouts, never realizing that bailouts are evil to begin with, no matter who they're for.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself." - Thomas Jefferson

This is matter you write about? What is the matter?

    “A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank.”
    ― Ron Paul

---
"This is bad." Submitted by complexphenom, 04/14/2012 ... "This isn't how Capitalism is supposed to work."
---
What Ron Paul writes make sense out of our monetary mess. What he advocates matters. What you lead with is a strong argument for returning our country to sound money. What you wrote makes one long for sound money all the more. Thank you.

Now pause & reflect.

Exactly where does fiat-money come from? A promissory note? A promise? Thin air?

Does one really "pay back" what is made up as accounting entries? A bank make entries into their special kind of accounting system. They create debtors. Debtors pay with blood, sweat & tears.

Please learn about the source, the immaculate source of debt-money... Money out of thin air. Money that grows on trees.
---
"Lenders will be less willing to lend in the future..." Submitted by complexphenom, 04/14/2012.

History is replete with atrocities... calamities... battles. Then mythically, debt-money is created to fund events that are sure to follow. War, perhaps. Debt-money appears out of nowhere to fund war. How can it be?

Is there really an Immaculate-Fountain-of-Money. The Immaculate-Money-Fountain (IMF)?

Please find sound money on the Periodic Table of Elements. Please read about Gold & Silver. They matter... for they are matter.

What Ron Paul is addressing matters. Please continue your study.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Funny-Money

I might agree with you if it wasn't all funny-money anyhow. If it is going to be done, it has to be done for all or at least most of the population to make it fair to those who didn't take out ridiculous loans or equity. Screw the banks!

Nehemiah 5:1 About this time

Nehemiah 5:1 About this time some of the men and their wives raised a cry of protest against their fellow Jews. 2 They were saying, “We have such large families. We need more food to survive.”

3 Others said, “We have mortgaged our fields, vineyards, and homes to get food during the famine.”

4 And others said, “We have had to borrow money on our fields and vineyards to pay our taxes. 5 We belong to the same family as those who are wealthy, and our children are just like theirs. Yet we must sell our children into slavery just to get enough money to live. We have already sold some of our daughters, and we are helpless to do anything about it, for our fields and vineyards are already mortgaged to others.”

6 When I heard their complaints, I was very angry. 7 After thinking it over, I spoke out against these nobles and officials. I told them, “You are hurting your own relatives by charging interest when they borrow money!” Then I called a public meeting to deal with the problem.

8 At the meeting I said to them, “We are doing all we can to redeem our Jewish relatives who have had to sell themselves to pagan foreigners, but you are selling them back into slavery again. How often must we redeem them?” And they had nothing to say in their defense.

9 Then I pressed further, “What you are doing is not right! Should you not walk in the fear of our God in order to avoid being mocked by enemy nations? 10 I myself, as well as my brothers and my workers, have been lending the people money and grain, but now let us stop this business of charging interest. 11 You must restore their fields, vineyards, olive groves, and homes to them this very day. And repay the interest you charged when you lent them money, grain, new wine, and olive oil.”

12 They replied, “We will give back everything and demand nothing more from the people. We will do as you say.” Then I called the priests and made the nobles and officials swear to do what they had promised.

13 I shook out the folds of my robe and said, “If you fail to keep your promise, may God shake you like this from your homes and from your property!”

The whole assembly responded, “Amen,” and they praised the Lord. And the people did as they had promised.

14 For the entire twelve years that I was governor of Judah—from the twentieth year to the thirty-second year of the reign of King Artaxerxes[a]—neither I nor my officials drew on our official food allowance. 15 The former governors, in contrast, had laid heavy burdens on the people, demanding a daily ration of food and wine, besides forty pieces[b] of silver. Even their assistants took advantage of the people. But because I feared God, I did not act that way.

16 I also devoted myself to working on the wall and refused to acquire any land. And I required all my servants to spend time working on the wall. 17 I asked for nothing, even though I regularly fed 150 Jewish officials at my table, besides all the visitors from other lands! 18 The provisions I paid for each day included one ox, six choice sheep or goats, and a large number of poultry. And every ten days we needed a large supply of all kinds of wine. Yet I refused to claim the governor’s food allowance because the people already carried a heavy burden.

19 Remember, O my God, all that I have done for these people, and bless me for it.

Jubilee

Indeed!